9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
1997 (1) TMI 452 - SC - VAT and Sales TaxWhether rule 12(3)(ii) of the Central Sales Tax (Andhra Pradesh) Rules was directory and not mandatory and if held to be mandatory the said Rule was ultra vires the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956? Held that -Appeal dismissed. In agreement with the High Court that rule 12(3)(ii) of the State Rules is not ultra vires the Act or the Central Rules.
Issues Involved:
1. Whether Rule 12(3)(ii) of the Central Sales Tax (Andhra Pradesh) Rules is directory or mandatory. 2. Whether Rule 12(3)(ii) is ultra vires the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. 3. Validity of the requirement to furnish Form C for claiming exemption under Section 6(2) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Whether Rule 12(3)(ii) of the Central Sales Tax (Andhra Pradesh) Rules is directory or mandatory: The court examined whether Rule 12(3)(ii), which mandates the furnishing of Form C for claiming exemption under Section 6(2) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, is directory or mandatory. The rule states that for claiming exemption from tax on subsequent sales, the purchasing dealer must furnish the original of the declaration in Form C received from the registered dealer to whom he sold the goods. The court held that the use of the term "shall furnish" indicates a mandatory requirement. The court emphasized that allowing substantial compliance would introduce uncertainty and lead to avoidable litigation. Therefore, the rule was deemed mandatory, requiring strict adherence to the specified mode of proof to claim the exemption. 2. Whether Rule 12(3)(ii) is ultra vires the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956: The court analyzed whether Rule 12(3)(ii) was ultra vires the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. The appellant contended that the rule imposed an additional requirement not specified in Section 6(2) of the Act, making it ultra vires. The court noted that Section 13 of the Act empowers the Central Government to make rules, including prescribing the form and particulars of any declaration or certificate required under the Act. The State Government is also empowered to make rules to carry out the purposes of the Act, provided they are not inconsistent with the Act or Central Rules. The court found that the requirement to furnish Form C, in addition to Form E-I, was within the scope of the rule-making power under Section 13(3) and (4) of the Act. It was not inconsistent with the Act or the Central Rules, as it provided a mode of proof for claiming exemption under Section 6(2). Therefore, Rule 12(3)(ii) was held to be intra vires the Act. 3. Validity of the requirement to furnish Form C for claiming exemption under Section 6(2) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956: The court examined the necessity of furnishing Form C for claiming exemption under Section 6(2) of the Act. The appellant argued that Section 6(2) only required the production of Form E-I and not Form C. The court observed that Section 6(2) grants exemption for subsequent sales of goods in the course of inter-State trade, provided certain conditions are met. The goods must be of the description referred to in Section 8(3), and the sale must be to a registered dealer. The court noted that Form C, prescribed under the Central Rules, serves as proof that the goods are of the description mentioned in Section 8(3). The State Government's requirement to furnish Form C for claiming exemption under Section 6(2) was consistent with the Act's scheme and provided a uniform mode of proof. The court held that the requirement to furnish Form C was valid and necessary to prevent uncertainty and avoidable litigation. Conclusion: The court dismissed the appeals, upholding the validity of Rule 12(3)(ii) of the Central Sales Tax (Andhra Pradesh) Rules. The rule was deemed mandatory, requiring the furnishing of Form C for claiming exemption under Section 6(2) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. The court found that the rule was intra vires the Act and consistent with its provisions. The requirement to furnish Form C was necessary to provide a uniform mode of proof and prevent uncertainty and litigation. The court made no order as to costs due to the conflict of views.
|
